What I want to know is who the hell got paid for that shit. And, frankly, Labour's was a slicker production than National's bizarre effort but damn... I've really got to stop having expectations of being treated like a sentient adult. (I'd also like to change the Broadcasting Act so party leaders are personally liable for heavy fines when their campaign ads are *cough* economical with the veritas. And, no, I don't draw Jesuitical distinctions between lies of commission and omission.)

Still, if you want to talk about perverse outcomes if the election was held tomorrow The Greens would get my party vote. Norman and Turei faintly annoyed me, but I wanted to bottle Goff and Key.

Labour's show was slicker, but I put a lot of that down to a very good decision. They have opted to take Key head on as a team. It made very compelling watching to hear from some of their pool of very competent orators. It's brilliant because it's totally apparent that Goff doesn't personally have enough to take Key head on, and the Nats have pinned their whole campaign on Key's face.

Also, it's a great answer to the concerns Gio puts excellent voice to. They have made a conscious choice to show the history of the people in their party to starkly contrast with the virtual absence of history that Key brings to the table.

I'll admit I didn't really have any idea who he was until I read The Hollow Men and was quite shocked to find just how much influence he was wielding in the party that was set to take control of the nation only a few years later.

As for Labour's policy plank, it's very timely. I fully agree with compulsory saving and CGT. These are good fiscal sense for the long term. Raising retirement, not so much, but it doesn't break my heart. It is my generation that will have to suck on the change, once again the boomers avoid the punishment. But I've got used to them apples, that's been the story of my life. I feel like it's a decision made not so much for fiscal reasons, because it's not even going to begin for until 2020, and not be complete until 2033, a couple of years before I become eligible for a pension. The baby boomers themselves will be all on pensions and in various stages of failing health, the costs of which will mostly be picked up by their descendants too. The reasons seem to be symbolic and slightly punitive to the currently young.

However, that might actually be what it takes to hold back the gradual transfer of boomer allegiance to the political Right. Their last throw at treating their middle aged children like they're still children who need a fiscal spank (again). I'm prepared to wear it, knowing that their time is rapidly drawing to a close. Christ, it's 22 years until 2033. Anything could happen politically in that time.

In short, good start by Labour. Have they drawn inspiration from the French? Could National, drawing inspiration from the All Blacks, actually choke?

Also, it’s a great answer to the concerns Gio puts excellent voice to. They have made a conscious choice to show the history of the people in their party to starkly contrast with the virtual absence of history that Key brings to the table.

Gio also Tweeted, “I want to vote Labour – in 1935”. I’m always amused how Roger Douglas managed to replace the whole Labour caucus (including Phil, I guess) with Randroids for so long… The thing about history is it’s seldom convenient to present needs.

But I’ve got used to them apples, that’s been the story of my life.

And why Phil need to get kicked in the nads every time he boasts about Labour having the biggest "balls" in town. I don't think there's anything courageous in putting the burden on the young, the working poor and Maori/Pasifika (who don't vote) and asking white middle-class middle-age Boomers (who do) to make no meaningful sacrifice whatsoever. Sounds an awful lot like business as usual.

I thought it was a remarkable broadcast, personally, ever bit as good as National's was awful (and surprisingly so). One could of course discuss the substance of how Labour's policies reflect the philosophy that is put forward in the broadcast - Scott Hamilton for instance dealt with the fiscal responsibility narrative earlier this week - but that's precisely what's so good about it: it puts forward a coherent and historically grounded rationale for what motivates Labour and the key members of its caucus against which to measure their campaign promises. Each of us will come to different conclusions about that, but by god does it raise the level of political discourse. That really was remarkable stuff.

Each of us will come to different conclusions about that, but by god does it raise the level of political discourse.

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that, though we’re not exactly talking about a rigorous or particularly high bar. In Masterchef terms, it was beautifully plated, over-garnished but still lacking substance. And very easy to over-rate set beside National’s disastrously half-baked effort at executing a relatively simple classic they should be able to do perfectly in their sleep.

Sorry, but I still give the win to the Greens for keeping it simple and pulling it off. OK, good plain cooking isn't for all palates but it was the only dish I wanted to swallow.

Yes, followed up shortly by "Seriously, though, the Labour party broadcast is very, very good. The complete opposite of all their advertising and dumb stunts so far."*

Sounds an awful lot like business as usual.

On retirement age it does. But CGT and compulsory savings are genuinely progressive policies and I applaud them for having the courage to raise these as the seriously good ideas that they are, both for fairness, AND as means to economic recovery.

If it is really all about the economy, then Labour is shouting that stewardship is not the same thing as doing nothing.

National's only serious comeback is asset sales. I thought Key made the point clearly enough, that the sales would be to fund purchases of new assets. But I found it extremely difficult to believe him on that. Much more work needs to be done to show what assets he is talking about. "More broadband" is just too vague, and "More roads" is something I don't even want at all. I do want more and better broadband, but I don't think handing the monopoly for a fibre network to Telecom is progressive at all.

Still, if you want to talk about perverse outcomes if the election was held tomorrow The Greens would get my party vote. Norman and Turei faintly annoyed me, but I wanted to bottle Goff and Key.

I think you should be able to change your electoral vote so that you can have two party votes and you should be able use full bottles. Then I would party vote Green and NZ First.

Given the opportunity to write your own history - well - you leave out the truth - of course you do.

The advt shows how far the Labour of today are from the West Coast roots and the Working Day Association. Michael Joseph Savage today would not get a look in.

A thought about both major parties - deficits and surpluses come and go - but assets sales and introduction of taxes well they last forever. It doesn't really matter if both tyres are flat and the chain has slipped off - Lets put training wheels on the economy.

I am a little surprised that Labour was ever got voted out of office - they are just so fantastic and have saved us so many times it is just incredible - I expect to see them campaigning with their underpants on the outside.

Consider the duality of incompetence say Rena for instance - we have a National Govt that doesn't ratify or adopt the provision and a Labour Govt that spends down the fund.

In Masterchef terms, it was beautifully plated, over-garnished but still lacking substance.

What substance were you expecting? A list of policies? That's not what a political broadcast should be about. A political broadcast needs to give electors the why, not the what and the how. There are plenty of places for the what and the how (campaign literature, leader debates, policy releases, speeches), but if you put them in your campaign broadcast, like National did, you're just trying to lose the election.

I think National's reasoning is pretty solid there: put assets up for sale so their friends in business can buy them, and devolve the proceeds to their friends in business to build roads. It's beautiful really.

More voters understand roads as infrastructure than understand energy and fibre communications are the ones that matter most for this nation's future.

Selling off core energy network assets to pay for more roads is a straightforward assertion of priorities and it needs to be named and shamed. I agree it's good politics so long as no one is prepared to do that.

I thought Labour's was pretty weak actually. I can't imagine that too many floating voters got past the interminable intro, chock-full of some of the ropiest ancient footage known to man. Newsflash: outside of nerds like us, no one gives a shit what happened in 1916. It did nothing to position Labour as the way forward, IMO.

Further, the address broke another cardinal rule of these things by featuring exactly zero punters. John Key's address ("public meeting" my arse, John!), OTOH, was - whilst curiously dark and dim - filled with a good selection of "real Kiwis", all of whom seemed to be doing the right thin and supporting National.

The Greens? It was pretty good, all 'round, though it felt like Russel and Metiria were relentlessly slowly chasing me.

I think the Greens may have made a slight mis-step in their broadcast. In a large part they were saying they'd be good for the poor and marginalised, but they kept on telling people to go to their website for the details. One of the things about the poor and marginalised in this country is that they don't often have convenient access to a computer and the internet.

More voters understand roads as infrastructure than understand energy and fibre communications are the ones that matter most for this nation’s future.

Selling off core energy network assets to pay for more roads is a straightforward assertion of priorities and it needs to be named and shamed. I agree it’s good politics so long as no one is prepared to do that.

After a few false starts, it's finally here (big image warning). Second opinions very much welcome.

I thought Key made the point clearly enough, that the sales would be to fund purchases of new assets.

And some may see that as a good business decision, however. We are talking infrastructure assets here, power and water, transport and, god help us, our national asset that is the envy of the rest of the world ACC.Key's assumption that all assets are equal is a crock of shit, we need those infrastructural assets to be owned and controlled for the county by the country otherwise we allow ourselves to be put over a barrel and you know what happens next in that scenario.

I don’t see them actively selling roads to foreign owners, not that we need many more roads let alone vast stretches of eight lane tarmac through our, some would say greatest asset, our “pristine” countryside. The problem I see is National wanting to sell the means of production. Maybe the workers should seize them, eh?.